Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

Statement by Ambassador Vitaly I. Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, during the Security Council Meeting

First of all, allow me to commend you, Mr. President, on convening today’s debate. We have seen a genuine revolution in the working methods of the Council, with Angola speaking on behalf of six members. Such initiatives should be supported — for example, it could be emulated by the new members joining the Council from the European Union.The Security Council has been discussing in an open format the issue of improving its working methods for several years. We believe that external audits and periodic stocktaking of the working methods helps Council members to define areas where there is room for improvement. However, we think it is necessary once again to state clearly that the working methods themselves and decisions on their possible modification are the preserve of the Security Council. We firmly believe that the sole goal of reforming the Security Council’s working methods should be to improve the Council’s effectiveness and efficiency in carrying out tasks to maintain international peace and security, which is the primary responsibility of the Council in line with the Charter of the United Nations. Allowing ourselves to be swept away by populism will only harm our action.We have heard criticism of the Council that at times it treads on the prerogatives of other United Nations bodies. We fully share those concerns. Our colleagues in the Council are well aware that we are cautious when it comes to the consideration of thematic subjects in the Security Council, in particular when it comes to those that rightly should fall within the remit of the General Assembly. Today we heard about plans to discuss in the Council the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — and specifically Goal 16. This is not a matter for the Security Council. This kind of discussion was planned months before the Agenda was officially launched, even before the specialized bodies — the General Assembly and the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, which is under the Economic and Social Council — have the possibility of beginning to work on a mechanism for conducting a review of the implementation of the Goals. We cannot support such initiatives in the Security Council, as they gravely undermine the Charter prerogatives of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. This issue must be treated extremely seriously.We must also recognize that many Security Council meetings devoted to thematic subjects receive a great response from Member States. The number of speakers in open debates can exceed 100. On such days the General Assembly appears to move into the Council Chamber. Would it not be better to hold such debates in the General Assembly Hall, where all can speak on an equal footing? There is another negative trend with regard to the revitalization of the General Assembly. Dragging the General Assembly agenda into the Security Council draws the Council and its members away from fulfilling their main task: focusing on country subjects and issues on which it can and must take urgent and tangible decisions. Perhaps due to a lack of time and the possibility of an in-depth, patient investment of effort into mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of each conflict situation, on the initiative of several countries, the Council is increasingly pushed into adopting rushed decisions and sanctions mechanisms based on invoking Chapter VII of the Charter. The effectiveness of such decisions leaves a lot to be desired. They often lead to merely worsening a crisis.There has been a lot of commotion in recent months in connection with the selection of the next Secretary-General. Moreover, at times the discussion has not been on substantive or technical issues. The Secretary-General still has over a year left in his mandate. However, some delegations seem intent on launching the selection process right now. We do not think there is any practical value in that, other than point-scoring for those promoting the initiative. Furthermore, we should not be putting further pressure on the current Secretary-General, much less bringing into the United Nations the “lame duck” concept — as the saying goes in certain countries whose political systems are hardly paragons of effectiveness.What we really should be focusing in the context of choosing the next Secretary-General is the need for further democratization of the work of the Secretariat. It cannot be considered normal when you have a situation whereby three key positions — the Under-Secretaries-General for peacekeeping, political and humanitarian affairs — are effectively usurped by three countries. We believe that, in order to maintain the effectiveness and legitimacy of the work of the Secretariat, we need to rotate those and certain other senior posts among all States Members of the United Nations. It is important to make the process for their appointment more transparent.We are satisfied overall with the relations between the Security Council and the Secretariat. The leadership of the Organization is always available to us and has an opportunity to approach the Council on any issue. We welcome the work of the Security Council Affairs Division. However, we would like to draw attention to another aspect of the work of the United Nations.The Secretariat is a gracious host, offering its premises at Headquarters for events on a broad range of issues organized by Member States. However, we need to understand that, when holding such events, all Members of the Organization — bar none — must respect the rules of the house. In that regard, we think it is unacceptable that, at the event on combating violent extremism organized by the delegation of the United States on 29 September, notwithstanding protests by the leadership of the Secretariat and certain delegations, that delegation invited representatives of the self-declared “Kosovo”, which is not a State Member of the United Nations. Kosovo Albanian representatives cannot be allowed to enter United Nations territory except when accompanied by Secretariat officials. Such action on the part of the United States is an abuse of its position as host country of the United Nations and demonstrates blatant disrespect for the Secretariat leadership. We call for an end to such high-handedness.On the other hands, when there is a real need to hear the opinions of newly independent States that are not United Nations Members, the United States tends to erect visa barriers. Every year, Georgia introduces to the General Assembly a draft resolution on refugees that cannot be considered without inviting representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to New York. Those representatives must be given the opportunity to have their say, even if only at special, informal events at Headquarters.The same applies to the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the work of the United Nations. Situations arise in which countries that one would imagine to be the strongest proponents of the participation of civil society actually block appearances by representatives of NGOs that hold different views to their own. Those who would be seen to be objective should endorse the participation, for instance, of representatives of the overwhelming majority of the population of Crimea in the United Nations work.Many delegations have noted the difference in the Security Council’s approach to countries on its agenda. Unfortunately, that approach is selective. When drafting a Security Council position, some of our partners, for example, have objected to duly reflecting the opinions of African States hosting peacekeeping operations, such as the Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and others. At times even the opinion of the African Union is ignored. On the other hand, the positions of third countries on other issues, conveyed via members of the Council, acquire exaggerated significance and become an obstacle to the adoption of necessary decisions. We call on our colleagues in the Council to act consistently and in a principled manner on such issues and to be guided exclusively by the need to strengthen international peace and security.We have consistently advocated improved coordination of the activities of the Security Council with the broadest possible circle of Member States, as well as with representatives who are competent to provide information that is important to the adoption of decisions. To that end, the Security Council is endowed with appropriate mechanisms, including unofficial meetings under the so-called Arria Formula. Unfortunately, however, in recent years there has been a growing trend to use such meetings to stage propaganda spectacles in which, for the reference of the Security Council, certain delegations seek to promote their own unilateral positions.Moreover, the cost of using United Nations premises and conference services — including interpretation in some cases — is met through the regular budget. In other words, all we taxpayers would appear to be subsidizing the political activities of certain States. That is unacceptable, and we call on our colleagues to use the Arria Formula format exclusively for its original end of providing greater clarity to the Security Council with respect to situations on its agenda.We are convinced that the Council would benefit from a democratization of its work, facilitated by a more balanced distribution of obligations informally linked to the so-called penholdership of some dossiers. Certain Council members should not consider countries or even regions to be their exclusive purview or act as mentors on issues concerning those countries. Such conduct is a remnant of days gone by that we need to abandon.In conclusion, with respect to the issue of the veto, which has been raised today, although we do not believe that it is relevant to the matter of working methods, the veto is one of the key provisions of the Charter that prompts Council members to reach consensus. I would simply say that it is clear why undermining the right of veto is the goal of those who would seek a mathematical majority on the Council, yet it is unclear why the veto is sometimes criticized by representatives of countries or regions that, in the absence of the veto, would find themselves under massive pressure from a particular group of States. I would suggest that they consider their own national interests.